By Ishola Balogun
The Lagos State Government and other appellants have appealed against a ruling of the Lagos State High Court granting an order of mandatory injunction to nullify the installation of the Onise of Ise Land.
The 1st to 4th respondent/appellants are asking the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, to set aside the ruling/order made on September 11, 2026, by Hon. Justice Y. A. Adesanya of the Lagos State High Court in Suit No. LD/0022PRA/2026.
In the notice of Appeal dated September 14, 2026, the 1st to 4th appellants contended that the trial court breached their right to fair hearing by proceeding with the application for mandatory injunction without hearing them.
They alleged that their counsel was unaware that the matter had been fixed for hearing during the court’s vacation and that the application was heard in the absence of their legal representation.
According to the appellants, their litigation clerk was at the registry of the trial court on September 10, 2026, to file their counter-affidavit and written address in opposition to the application for mandatory injunction, as well as an application for extension of time and an order deeming the processes properly filed.
They said they only became aware at about 12:36pm that day that the matter had come up in court.
The appellants further stated that their counsel immediately took steps to seek a rehearing of the mandatory injunction application on the grounds of fair hearing.
However, according to the Notice of Appeal, the trial court subsequently dismissed the application for rehearing as incompetent and proceeded to deliver its ruling on the mandatory injunction.
The appellants argued that they ought to have been given an opportunity to present their case before the court determined the application, insisting that the refusal occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
The appellants also challenged the substantive basis for the mandatory injunction, arguing that the interim order earlier granted by the High Court had already lapsed before the installation of the monarch.
They stated that the trial court had, on August 13, 2026, granted an interim order of injunction for seven days restraining them from acting or continuing to act on a letter issued by the Ise Kingmakers dated March 30, 2026.
According to the appellants, the order expired on August 20, 2026 and was not renewed.
They therefore argued that there was no basis for subsequently granting a mandatory injunction, particularly as the installation complained of took place after the expiration of the interim order.
The appellants further contended that the mandatory injunction amounted to a final determination of the substantive dispute at an interlocutory stage.
They urged the appellate court to consider the established principles governing the grant of mandatory injunctions, which, they argued, make the remedy an exceptional and drastic one.
Citing judicial authorities including Dr. Modile v. The Governor of Lagos State and Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso v. Kano State, the appellants argued that the circumstances of the case did not justify the exceptional remedy.
They maintained that the chieftaincy stool at the center of the dispute was neither perishable nor destructible and that the successful party in the substantive case could still obtain appropriate relief after the determination of the dispute.
The appellants also argued that the potential injury to them and the people of Ise Land from granting the mandatory injunction would outweigh any benefit to the applicants.
They specifically contended that the installation of the monarch was carried out by the Ise Kingmakers and described the installed monarch as an Oba duly appointed by the kingmakers.
The appeal therefore raises questions not only about the propriety of the mandatory injunction but also about the circumstances in which the trial court proceeded to determine the application without the participation of the appellants’ counsel.
The appellants are asking the Court of Appeal to intervene and set aside the decision of the lower court.
The respondents in the appeal include Alhaji Adeniyi Atere, Mrs Idowu Adebisi Lana, Mr Babatunde Ekundayo Lana, and other individuals connected with the dispute.
The Appeal implies that the installation of Oba Ibrahim Adebowale Saliu as the Onise of Ise Land remains unaffected by the Order pending the determination of the Appeal.